[2026:RJ-JP:12010-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3934/2026

1. Kundan Singh S/o Hajari Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Dcm, Main Road, Petrol Pump Ke Samne, Raipura, Kota, Rajasthan.

2. Ramkishan S/o Kalulal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Berajedi Ward No. 9, Tehsil Anta, Distt. Baran, Raj.

----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub-Registrar, Kota-I, Distt. Kota Raj.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh for Mr. Hridayesh Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Sankalp Vijay HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

23/03/2026

1. The power under article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised with discretion, where there is a statutory remedy available of filing a Revision under the Act, this court would usually stay its sense in entertaining a writ petition. The present case is one where the Collector has passed an order under Section 51 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 and remedy of revision lies before the Tax board.

2. In our opinion the revisional authority would have larger scope to examine the contentions than this court while entertaining a writ petition. Being an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, we do not wish to exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and entertain this writ petition directly against the order passed by the Collector stamp. We also notice that in the case of Technimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2021) 12 SCC page 477, the Apex Court has also opined that remedy of appeal being a statutory remedy cannot be circumscribed in normal circumstances. If it is a case where there is a direct allegation of violations of fundamental rights, then this court may entertain a writ petition even if the remedy of appeal is available. A coordinate bench of this court in the case Omaxe Ltd. Corporate Office Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1065/2018 has also taken the similar view as we have taken herein above.

3. Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 reads as under:

“Revision by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the 1 [Inspector General of Stamp or Collector] under Chapter IV and V and under clause (a) of the first provision to section 29 and under section 35 of the Act, may within 90 days from the date of order, apply to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for revision of such order: 2"Provided that the Inspector General of Stamp or any other officer authorised specially or generally by the Inspector General of Stamp may, if aggrieved by any order referred to in this subsection, may file revision before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority within 180 days from the date of the communication of the order.". 3Provided further that no revision application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of 4 [twenty five percent] of the recoverable amount. (2) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may suo-motu or on information received from the registering officer or otherwise call for and examine the record of any case decided in proceeding held by the 5 [Inspector General of Stamp or] Collector for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit. Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.”

4. We therefore reject this writ petition at this stage however our rejection would not come in any manner for the revisional authority to adjudicate the case on merits if a revision is preferred within 15 days from today, the same shall be examined on merits sans limitation.

5. Accordingly, the present civil writ petition stands dismissed.

6. All pending applicat